Cited by 838Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases

Haselton, Martie G., Nettle, Daniel·2006·Personality and Social Psychology Review

Abstract

Human cognition is often biased, from judgments of the time of impact of approaching objects all the way through to estimations of social outcomes in the future. We propose these effects and a host of others may all be understood from an evolutionary psychological perspective. In this article, we elaborate error management theory (EMT; Haselton & Buss, 2000). EMT predicts that if judgments are made under uncertainty, and the costs of false positive and false negative errors have been asymmetric over evolutionary history, selection should have favored a bias toward making the least costly error. This perspective integrates a diverse array of effects under a single explanatory umbrella, and it yields new content-specific predictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many biological features or cognitive traits were selected for fulfilling a certain function despite rarely doing so or even having maladaptive effects.

    “The literature offers many examples of biological features or cognitive traits that were selected for fulfilling a certain function despite rarely doing so or even having maladaptive effects (Millikan 1984;Haselton and Nettle 2006).”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Haselton and Nettle 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Published
2006-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
47-66
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
OpenAlex
W2134395675
Cited by
838
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 45
FWCI
35.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
cognitive biases, error management theory, evolutionary psychology, false positives and false negatives, judgment under uncertainty, optimism
MeSH terms
Animals, Avoidance Learning, Cognition, Cognitive Dissonance, Culture, Biological Evolution, Humans, Illusions, Internal-External Control, Judgment, Models, Psychological, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Psychological Theory, Social Perception, Likelihood Functions, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review